1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioners who are the unsuccessful defendants seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14-6-1978 whereby a civil revision petition filed by them against the decree passed by the trial Court on 21-3-1977 and affirmed in first appeal on 9-4-1978, was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff-respondents claimed that they had sold a portion of their proprietary agricultural land in Chak No.69/16, Tehsil Nankana Sahib District Sheikhupura to the petitioners. The possession had been delivered to them and they were in the enjoyment of it. There was in the Abadi Deh removed from the land sold Ahata which was in their possession and ownership, On the basis of the sale- deed relating to agricultural land the petitioners were laying claim to the building in the Abadi and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondent. A suit was instituted claiming a declaration that they were owners of the house and seeking an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with their ownership and possession over it. The petitioners claimed that in fact not only the land but also the Ahata appurtenant to it and located in the Abadi had been transferred to them. The suit was contested on, numerous grounds but the one which is now relevant is with regard to the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed house which was Issue No.5. The trial Court held that house was not sold and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The first appeal against the judgment and the decree failed and so did the civil revision petition filed by the petitioners. Hence the petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sale-deed mentioned the transfer of the right to the Ahata and the only Ahata that the vendors had was in the Abadi and it stood transferred to them alongwith the land. According to the learned counsel all the three Courts have taken an erroneous view on a question of fact.
4. The sale-deed itself which is the subject-matter of controversy and forms the basis of the rights of the parties has not been placed on record. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners was good enough to make it available for our perusal at the hearing. The trial Court after considering the evidence recorded the following finding:- "I have carefully considered that matter. I have also gone through the registered sale-deed, Exh.D/1.'
5. This document does not support the contention of the defendants that Ahata constructed on an area measuring 10 Marias and consisting of to rooms was sold by the plaintiffs in their favour. The sale-deed only mentions that Ahata Deh was sold by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants."
6. On appeal the District Judge maintained the finding of the trial Court in following words:- "The transaction took place though the registered sale-deed and the written document must prevail over the oral evidence of the parties. In the registered sale-deed Exh.D./1, the word Ahata Deh has been used and the description of the house in dispute has not been given. To support their contention, the respondents relied upon Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 in respect of the residential land in the Mauza. According to Jamabandi Exh.P/1, the respondents are shown owners of the Sikni land measuring 8 Marlas and 4 Sarsahi. Copy of Jamabandi Exh./P1 was issued to the respondents by Patwari after registration of sale-deed Exh.D/1. Even after registration of sale-deed Exh.D/1, the respondents were recorded owners of the disputed land over which the residential house is situated. The transaction was effected through registered sale-deed and the Revenue Authorities were bound to implement the registered sale-deed in letter and spirit in the revenue record. The fact that respondents could not get the property in Jamabandi Exh.P/1 transferred in their ownership in the revenue record implies that the Ahata Deh was sold to the appellants did not include the residential house in the Mauza because a separate record of rights is being maintained in respect of the Sikni land. Since the registered sale-deed is silent about the land which was to be considered as Ahata Deh so from the evidence on the record it cannot be gathered that the respondents by this Ahata Deh intended to transfer the residential house to the appellants. Had the respondents intended to transfer the residential house, there was no bar in giving the description of residential property in the sale-deed. Since the registered sale-deed does not expressly cover the residential house so the learned Civil Judge has rightly held that the respondents are owners in possession of the disputed house."
7. The High Court affirmed the findings observing as follows:- "No fault has been found in manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the lower Courts while arriving attheir concurrent conclusions. There is no ground for interference with the impugned judgment and decree in the exercise of powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine."
8. On a perusal of the document relied upon by both the parties for their claim, we find that Khewat No.7, Khatoni No.7 Khasra No.38 (old) and 32 (present) which is the subject- matter of litigation does not find a mention in the sale-deed. The particulars of the property k sold are different from the one to which the suit related. Apart from this, while selling their agricultural land, the vendors had only mentioned the transfer of their appurtenant rights in the land including the one relating to the acquisition of an Ahata and the use of water etc. The right to claim an Ahata as an appurtenant to the land sold could not be interpreted or extended to the existing Ahatas in Village Abadi which did not otherwise form part of the property sold. We find that in determining a fact from the document the Courts have not commuted any error such as may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.